Why do health economists promote technology adoption rather than the search for efficiency? A proposal for a change in our approach to economic evaluation in health care

Acknowledgments Financial Support: HERU and HSRU receive a core grant from the Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, and the Centre for Clinical epidemiology & Evaluation is funded by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The model used for the illustrative case study in this paper was developed as part of a NHS Technology Assessment Review, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Program (project number 09/146/01). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government, NHS, Vancouver Coastal Health, NIHR HTA Program or the Department of Health. The authors wish to thank Kathleen Boyd and members of the audience at the UK Health Economists Study Group, for comments received on an earlier version of this paper. We also wish to thank Cynthia Fraser (University of Aberdeen) for literature searches undertaken to inform the manuscript, and Mohsen Sadatsafavi (University of British Columbia) for comments on an earlier draft

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of diabetes in people with impaired glucose regulation : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Peer reviewed

Surgical trial in traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (STITCH) : A randomised controlled trial of early surgery compared with Initial conservative treatment

Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Antibiotic treatment for intermittent bladder catheterisation with once daily prophylaxis (the AnTIC study) : Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Funder statement This article/paper/report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the UK Government’s Department of Health. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Dr Graeme MacLennan, Mr Simon Skene, Mr Julian Shah and Dr Nadine Dougall (past member) for their valuable contribution to the study as DMC members. We would like to thank Professor Chris Butler, Dr Emma Hall, Mr Roland Morley, Mr Dan Wood, Ms Jane Laws and Ms Sarah Bittlestone for their oversight of the AnTIC study as members of the TSC, and we would like to thank Ms Heather Armstrong for her contributions as a patient group representative. We thank all Principal Investigators and site staff for their commitment in recruitment for the AnTIC study. Finally, we would like to thank Hazel Wilde for secretarial support. The trial is funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project reference: 11-72-01) and will be published in full in the Health Technology Assessment journal series. The authors also acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network.

The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting : systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial

This project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Systematic review of the health and societal effects of medication organisation devices

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank, Estelle Payerne (article screening, data extraction and bias assessment); Trish Boyton (article retrieval and screening) and Laura Cawley (search terms and title screening) for their invaluable help in conducting this systematic review. Funding The research was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Breast pumps as an incentive for breastfeeding : a mixed methods study of acceptability

Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.

Breast pumps as an incentive for breastfeeding : a mixed methods study of acceptability

Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.

Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic repair for rotator cuff tears : economic evaluation alongside the UKUFF trial

FUNDING & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 05/47/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/054702 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Due to the confidential nature of the trial data supporting this publication not all of the data can be made accessible to other researchers. Please contact the UKUFF study principal investigator Andrew Carr (andrew.carr@ndorms.ox.ac.uk) for more information. The authors wish to thank the UKUFF trial collaborators for their contribution in managing the conduct of the trial, and for their comments on the interim economic results: Marion Campbell and Hannah Bruhn (Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, HSRU, University of Aberdeen), Jonathan Rees MD and David Beard (NDORMS, University of Oxford; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre), Jane Moser (NDORMS, University of Oxford), Raymond Fitzpatrick and Jill Dawson (NDPH, University of Oxford).

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study) : study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The VUE study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/129/183).

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial : a randomised controlled trial

Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who agreed to take part in the trial. This study was supported NHS Research Scotland (NRS), through Chief Scientist Office (CSO) and the Scottish Mental Health Research Network, and the Clinical Research Network-Mental Health. We are grateful to the Psychosis Research Unit (PRU) Service User Reference Group (SURG) for their consultation regarding the design of the study and contribution to the developments of study related materials. We are grateful to our Independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee for provided oversight of the trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number10/101/02) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Visit the HTA programme website for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.